Abe
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Abe May 08, 2007 6:00 AM EDT |
Quoting:And importantly, Microsoft and Novell also agreed not to sue each other over intellectual property. But I thought Novell & MS both said they still can sue each other over IP infringement and the greement was to protect their customers from being sued by either one of them? Is he just simply un-informed or does he know something we don't? Quoting:Linux fans went nuts. Why? Because they hate Microsoft. Who gave you that idea? No really, we don't hate Microsoft, we just hate their behavior, actions, attitude, sleazy tactics,...etc etc etc. |
| number6x May 08, 2007 6:33 AM EDT |
No. Linux fans are demanding details because the CEO of a major corporation is saying they are infringing his precious IP, but not backing it up with any substantial proof. They are being accused of a crime with no evidence being shown. It should be Microsoft stockholders that are going nuts. If their CEO knows of infringement, but is ignoring it, he may be allowing it to continue under the principles of estoppels and latches. If he is just spouting FUD and its not the truth, his lies may be affecting the stock price of Microsoft positively and of publicly traded Linux vendors negatively. This could involve Microsoft in hefty fines for breaking the law. Using untruths and lies to alter a company's position in the market is not a good idea for a CEO. Either way it could cost Microsoft stockholders billions of dollars. Either billions they invested in (buying) innovating their precious IP, or hefty fines for using lies to manipulate the marketplace. All because Steve Ballmer can't keep his trap shut. Steve Ballmer is the CEO now, not just 'some guy from marketing' any more. He needs to be careful in what he says. Put up or shut up. |
| Abe May 08, 2007 8:08 AM EDT |
Quoting:Steve Ballmer is the CEO now, not just 'some guy from marketing' any more. He needs to be careful in what he says. Very good point. MS tried all they can to stop or at least slow Linux down but failed miserably so far. Ballmer is getting so frustrated and IP is the only vague option left for them to take advantage of. If they had any valid IP infrigement, Ballmer would have sued already. He wouldn't wait until Windows is reduced in the market and Linux gets more entrenched. Quoting:Put up or shut up. So true, he has to be careful because all his spouting about IP infringement could come back to haunt him big time. IBM has a vested interest in Linux. I am hoping that SCO's case is thrown out of court pretty soon and IBM takes Ballmer to court forcing him to cease his lies. |
| d0nk3y May 08, 2007 7:53 PM EDT |
"If they had any valid IP infrigement, Ballmer would have sued already. He wouldn't wait until Windows is reduced in the market and Linux gets more entrenched." Now there's an interesting point. What if there *are* infringements and he's waiting until linux gets more entrenched so they can sue more people! But, why would they try and downplay linux so ardently then.... maybe it is just like people think... oh well.... Though, perhaps hes just bluffing and making it seem like he wants to downplay linux when actually..... Sorry - at this point all I can think of is that scene from The Princess Bride. Is Ballmer a sicilian perhaps? |
| NoDough May 09, 2007 5:42 AM EDT |
Quoting:What if there *are* infringements and he's waiting until linux gets more entrenched so they can sue more people!IANAL, but I don't think he can do that legally. Dino? Little help here? |
| Aladdin_Sane May 09, 2007 5:53 AM EDT |
NoDough: Laches: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) -- "Laches is an equitable defense, or doctrine, in an action at law. The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights", and that, as a result of this delay, that other party is no longer entitled to its original claim. Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in claims being barred by laches. Laches is a form of estoppel for delay." See also: [url=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define:laches&btnG=Google Search]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define:laches&btnG=Goog...[/url] |
| Abe May 09, 2007 5:54 AM EDT |
Quoting:IANAL, but I don't think he can do that legally. Dino? Little help here? IANAL either but, I believe you are right, especially when he, widely and openly, has been letting everyone know about it. I also believe that there is a due date, from the time you knew about an infringment, by which you have to sue otherwise you have no case. If there isn't such law, there should be. Dino? are you around! |
| vainrveenr May 09, 2007 6:24 AM EDT |
One or more of you may wish to do more investigatation on this at PJ's Groklaw site, http://www.groklaw.com
Probably more specifics on M$ IP infringement threats in the future, by PJ, once the SCO case gets shot down. Today's Groklaw piece 'Why Is Dell Buying SLES certificates from Microsoft, Not Novell?' is also intriguing and RIGHT ON, http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007050906365658 PJ's closing conjecture in this is the following: Quoting:Might there be an additional possible explanation for why Dell will be getting certificates from Microsoft instead of from Novell? Consider this: Recently FSF's Brett Smith said this on Grokaw about Microsoft and those certificates in answer to a reader question:Well!!!??? |
| number6x May 09, 2007 7:09 AM EDT |
Steve Ballmer is the CEO of Microsoft. He has said he knows of infringement in Linux. If he was just some guy from marketing, he could probably blather on for ever. However he is the CEO. If he knows of infringement and does not act to protect the stockholder's assets, anyone accused of infringing could make a case under the principles of latches (ask your lawyer for sure). IANAL, but from what I read about estoppel and latches Steve Ballmer, legally speaking, has to "put up or shut up". I really think the board at Microsoft should be thinking hard about a replacement for Mr. B. |
| Abe May 09, 2007 7:36 AM EDT |
Quoting:vainrveenr Thanks for the links. Very informative. |
| dcparris May 09, 2007 7:37 AM EDT |
And please, please sue us over sudo. :-) |
| Abe May 09, 2007 7:40 AM EDT |
Quoting:I really think the board at Microsoft should be thinking hard about a replacement for Mr. B. No No, don't say that. We want Ballmer to stay! |
| Sander_Marechal May 09, 2007 7:49 AM EDT |
Quoting:And please, please sue us over sudo. suedo! ...couldn't resist... |
| dcparris May 09, 2007 8:03 AM EDT |
Sheesh! (Can't groan, apparently, I'm already fully groan.) |
| bigg May 09, 2007 8:05 AM EDT |
> We want Ballmer to stay! I go back and forth on the issue. Vista will help kill proprietary software, and we'll get more of the same as long as he's in command. OTOH, it wouldn't be a bad thing to have Microsoft stop wasting resources on the dead end strategy of protecting their OS with lock-in. A new CEO might turn them into a software company. |
| tuxchick May 09, 2007 8:41 AM EDT |
I'm with bigg. It's more constructive to turn dung into fertilizer. |
| Abe May 09, 2007 9:26 AM EDT |
Quoting:A new CEO might turn them into a software company. I was being funny. Yes, I agree too, removing him as a starter could be beneficial, but the issue is not Ballmer only , it is the MS culture in general that Gates built and still has big influence on. That is going to take sometime. Then again, the way things look, it might be sooner than I expected. |
| vainrveenr May 09, 2007 8:19 PM EDT |
@Abe
You are welcome for the links! :) We'll all have to keep track of the relevant legal issues from PJ, the Groklaw respondants (and maybe Dino?) |
| dinotrac May 10, 2007 4:17 AM EDT |
>IANAL, but I don't think he can do that legally. Dino? Little help here? Yes, he can do that legally. The problem he can run into, however, is that patent infringement recovery requires notice. That's why you see so many items with patent numbers on them. So far, all they have said is that there is some infringement, but, without some notice as to what is being infringed, I don't think (I am not, and never was a patent lawyer, and the rules are different from copyright) they can recover for past infringement. Once they inform people reasonably (and, in the case of linux, I think they would have to make clear what patents are being infringed), they can sue to recover for ongoing infringement. Microsoft's strategy might make a certain sense. A couple of things come to mind. First, any money to be made is likely a one-shot deal. Once they put the patents out there and claim infringements, the kernel developers can "invent around" the patents, or fight them. Inventing around is simply the process of doing what you need in a different way. My name got on a couple of patents by virtue of the inventing around process. While at a former employer, AT&T held a network patent that crimped our ability to negotiate for better long distance rates. In cooperation with competing carriers, we came up with another way to achieve the same end. AT&T still had its patent, but it didn't apply to us. Microsoft might be waiting for some of its applied-for patents to be granted, or they might simply want to get the biggest one-time shot they can, figuring that the value of their patent portfolio will take a big hit the minute they actually use it in anger. |
| Abe May 10, 2007 6:52 AM EDT |
Quoting:Yes, he can do that legally. Sounds reasonable, but I am still not sure about some vague issues. I appolize, but I am an EE and things always need to be in black and white to understand them. Well, any one can sue any body, but whether they can get anything out of it is what counts, right! Quoting:without some notice as to what is being infringed, ... I don't think they can recover for past infringement. So far so good. But what sort of notice does it have to be? Would a public one suffice in court? Or does it depend on the case and the judge? Quoting:Once they inform people reasonably (and, in the case of linux, I think they would have to make clear what patents are being infringed), they can sue to recover for ongoing infringement. So far we are still OK. Developers would remove the infringing code unless it is major, then we have a problem. Is it only in Linux case or is it in general that who ever is claiming infringement is obligated to disclose the infringemnet? It sounds like, they can recover on ongoing but not past infringement, right? Quoting:Microsoft's strategy might make a certain sense. A couple of things come to mind. First, any money to be made is likely a one-shot deal. Once they put the patents out there and claim infringements, the kernel developers can "invent around" the patents, or fight them. I am confused how their strategy could make sense. If MS gives a notice, and developers "invent around" it, how is MS going to make money by suing, especially when they can not recover for past infrigment? So, if MS knows for sure that there is infringement but keeps delaying their suit, they are actually losing market share, giving Linux a chance to become more entrenched, and losing potential money if they keep delaying. I hope you have time to research these!!! |
| dinotrac May 10, 2007 7:16 AM EDT |
Abe - Notice is not a linux thing, but it need not point to a specific infringement. The normal case, for example, when you buy a product covered by patents, is that it will have a list of patents attached right to it. That is sufficient notice that the item is covered by patents and that you infringe those patents at your own risk. I don't know how many specific patents Microsoft lists on it's box. For that matter, I don't know the rule of thumb for actual notice in software cases, but I would bet that Microsoft hasn't given it. The way that the strategy could make sense is this: 1. Knowing that developers could invent around, you also know that you have a limited time to make hay. Have as many patents in hand as you can -- even if all of them can be circumvented, more things means more time. 2. If there's a fight, you could lose a lot of your patents, so, again, strike to the biggest effect. Bad patents are very valuable. Invalidated patents are worthless. |
| jdixon May 10, 2007 7:17 AM EDT |
> So, if MS knows for sure that there is infringement but keeps delaying their suit, they are actually losing market share, giving Linux a chance to become more entrenched, and losing potential money if they keep delaying. Or they can blackmail Linux vendors into paying a per copy royalty to Microsoft to keep from being sued. :( |
| Abe May 10, 2007 7:47 AM EDT |
Quoting:Or they can blackmail Linux vendors into paying a per copy royalty to Microsoft to keep from being sued. :( That is the killer because MS strategy is to add overhead to Linux as much as they can and some vendors might chicken out, like Novell & Dell did. I guess that is what Dino is pointing to by saying MS strategy could make sense. Blackmail becomes ineffective as it gets exposed with time similar to SCO's claims. |
| Abe May 10, 2007 7:57 AM EDT |
Quoting:Dino: So, it is a hairy ball of wax we have to deal with or go somewhere else where Patent Laws are not valid. I would chose to deal with it to see the end of MS. MS is not the first one and will not be the last. One company is not going to be effective against MS, but numerous little ones each suing MS will work just fine. |
| dinotrac May 10, 2007 8:14 AM EDT |
>One company is not going to be effective against MS, but numerous little ones each suing MS will work just fine. For the most part, Microsoft seems to be on the paying end of patent suits. |
| bigg May 10, 2007 8:29 AM EDT |
One minor point. I make no claims to being a patent lawyer, but my understanding was that the serious offense is knowingly using someone else's patent without compensation. By giving notice, it is easy to prove that the offender knew about the patent, but there might be other ways to meet the criteria. It is possible that someone other than the patent holder (such as an employee of the offending company) could notify management of the infringement, or for patents like MP3, any company distributing multimedia should know there are patent issues. Microsoft might knowingly use a patent but keep it secret inside their source code, but if I'm correct, they'd still be in violation. Microsoft might have a case because Linux distributors like Red Hat should know about at least some of the infringing code. |
| Abe May 10, 2007 8:54 AM EDT |
Quoting:It is possible that someone other than the patent holder (such as an employee of the offending company) could notify management of the infringement, IANAL, I believe you are right. When legally notified (by owner or anyone else who can prove it in court) that your are infringing on a patent and don't stop or pay royalty, you are committing a serious offense. Quoting:Microsoft might have a case because Linux distributors like Red Hat should know about at least some of the infringing code. Why & How should Red Hat know about infringing on MS code? MS software is not open, MS didn't notify Red Hat, as far as we know? Did Red Purchase MS products with patents listed on the package? Or is it just because MS said that Linux infringes on MS code? |
| Abe May 10, 2007 9:00 AM EDT |
Quoting:For the most part, Microsoft seems to be on the paying end of patent suits.That is conforting. But can it be used in court as a precedence? One more question Dino. Is it possible that all this public announcement by Ballmer about Linux infringing be considered as a sufficient legal notice? |
| techiem2 May 10, 2007 9:11 AM EDT |
Wouldn't it only be considered sufficient notice if they actually said what patents were being infringed? At least that would be the logical conclusion. Not that our legal system is anywhere near logical... |
| bigg May 10, 2007 9:27 AM EDT |
> MS software is not open, MS didn't notify Red Hat, as far as we know? Again, I'm not a patent lawyer, but it is possible that they would argue that Red Hat might have known by other means. For instance, there have been studies done on the topic (that Ballmer likes to talk about). Red Hat surely knows about these studies, and has most likely even done their own. I'm just throwing this out for thought, with no claim to knowledge on the topic, just applying the logic of a few things I've read. |
| Abe May 10, 2007 9:38 AM EDT |
Quoting:Wouldn't it only be considered sufficient notice if they actually said what patents were being infringed? I guess it would be, but they might have a good reason for not to. Or it could just be a big mistake by Ballmer. |
| Abe May 10, 2007 9:56 AM EDT |
Quoting:For instance, there have been studies done on the topic... But that doesn't mean Red Hat read the studies or known about it. Some one has to prove it in court. Quoting:and has most likely even done their own.They better had not done that, it would be self increminating. Any ways, MS has to prove that they did it or at least known about the specific infringement. I don't believe Red Hat are stupid enough to do that. As a matter of fact, on lawyers advice, companies forbids their employees from discussing or even talking about patents. Claiming ignorance is one good defense strategy to avoid severe penalties. Bigg, I understand your point, but we are just throwing brain storming ideas. |
| dinotrac May 10, 2007 11:02 AM EDT |
>Linux infringing be considered as a sufficient legal notice? No. Microsoft must announce its patents. That is not the same, however, as saying that Linux ifringed Patent A. It is sufficent to say that they are covered by Patent A, which gives develoeprs a chance to see what it covers. |
| Abe May 10, 2007 11:52 AM EDT |
Quoting:No. Microsoft must announce its patents Thank you. No more questions your honor, I rest my case. It is funny, My head hurts but I feel better now. |
| dcparris May 10, 2007 2:40 PM EDT |
Abe, there'll be no more legal jargon for you today! |
| Abe May 10, 2007 5:08 PM EDT |
Quoting:Abe, there'll be no more legal jargon for you today! Thanks, I needed the break. How about the counsel? He deserves a break too. I hope he doesn't send me a bill! |
| dcparris May 10, 2007 5:11 PM EDT |
Sorry, but I can't help you with the bill. That's between you and your counsel. Counsel(s) are on break for a while. Court is adjorned. ;-) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!